Such scholars as Yuksel (2009), Bivolaru, Andrei and Purcaroiu (2012), and Boluk et al. (2017) highlight that the variables concerned are categorised as consisting of political, economic, sociocultural and technological (PEST) factors. PEST factors, according to Yuksel (2009), provide a general idea about the macro environment and about the situation of a destination.
Bowen, Zubair and Altinay (2016) advance the fact that PEST factors allow for the identification of the environment within which the destination operates. They also provide the required data and information that will enable the destination to predict situations and circumstances that it might encounter in future (Hannam, Mostafanezhad & Rickly, 2016).
In addition to the above, Causevic and Lynch (2013), as well as Lew (2017), underscore that conducting PEST analysis is a fundamental requirement, for it forms the basis for the planning process of tourism development. Thus, a destination looking at how to grow its tourism sector through developing tourism offerings is encouraged to consider the undertaking of a PEST analysis as being its first step towards the agenda noted. In addition to PEST factors, Bivolaru et al. (2012) and Salifou and Ul Haq (2017), as well as Brahmasrene and Lee (2017), argue that another prominent variable affecting tourism product development is globalisation. Each of the aforementioned variables is discussed below.
Political factors
Some studies (Buda & Shim, 2017; Farmarki, 2017; Mosadale, 2012) are of the view that the political environment has been one of the most critical variables dictating the pace of development of the tourism industry. Mzembi (2014) concurs with this viewpoint, giving Zimbabwe as one example of a destination whose tourism pace was influenced by the politics of the country. Hannam et al. (2016), as well as Lew (2017), argue that the important political factors to consider when planning for tourism are the laws and regulations relating to the environmental protection, the taxation, the employment, the foreign investment, and other political aspects, which, either directly or indirectly, impact on the STD concerned.
In other words, it is important to analyse the influence of government policy on the laws regulating tourism operations at a destination when planning for tourism development (Bowen et al., 2016; Farmarki, 2017; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2016). In addition, tourism stakeholders should also assess the political economy of the government involved (Buda & Shim, 2017; Mosadale, 2012). Doing so should assist in gauging the economic development policy, and tourism’s position therein (Hall, 1994; Kim & Fesenmair, 2017).
Mosadale (2012) defines the political economy as consisting of the production and accumulation of wealth (i.e. its economic dimension) and its distribution (i.e. its political dimension). The above definition implies that politics is at the centre of tourism development (Farmarki, 2017). Politics is, perhaps, the most influential external variable in the tourism development of any destination (Dieke, 2009; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2016; Nunkoo & Smith, 2013). In relation to the making of such an assertion, Hall (1994), Dieke (2009), and Nunkoo and Smith (2013), as well as Lew (2017), concur that the political economy is at the core of any tourism development, helping to determine the success or failure of destinations, in terms of the maximisation of their full potential.
Hence, tourism development is shaped in fundamental ways by the political economy involved (Lew, 2017; Nelson, 2012). Nunkoo and Smith (2013) advance the proposition that successful tourism destinations are those whose internal politics are stable, and whose international relationships have a favourable political climate. In the case of Zimbabwe, the post-colonial era, especially between 1989 and 1999, was marked by a harmonious political environment, with it being a peaceful and favourable place to visit (New Zimbabwe, 2010, 2017).
However, the political disturbances of 1999 to 2000 led to travel bans from prominent market destinations (Mzembi, 2014; Vengesayi et al., 2014), accompanied by economic difficulties,
due to the imposed sanctions (Chingarande, 2014), power cuts (ZTA, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015), the withdrawal of many investors, and the depreciation of the tourism infrastructure (Mkono, 2010; Runyowa, 2017). The factors involved resulted in a drawback in terms of the tourism development of Zimbabwe (Mutanga et al., 2015). The need for Zimbabwe to identify politics as one of the major variables affecting its tourism industry negatively is imperative, given the aforementioned situation.
Furthermore, tourism is a powerful mix of cultural, economic and political phenomena that require addressing before any development can take place. The multidisciplinarity of the sector comes from it involving many institutions and individuals from various sections of the environment, with varying values and interests in relation to the sector (Burns & Noveli, 2007;
Butcher, 2017; Henderson, 2017). One can argue, based on the presented viewpoint, that tourism’s patterns and processes are a response to different contested values and interests (Farmarki, 2017).
According to Hall and Page (2014), the response of tourism to contested values and interests means that the success, or failure, of the management, development and sustainability of tourism offerings at a destination strongly relies on how a destination responds to changes that occur in both the global and national political economy. Thus, the political economy can be considered as a driver of change within the tourism sector (Buda & Shim, 2017; Nelson, 2012), and the future of a destination as a tourism region can be regarded as being shaped by the nature of its political economy (Mkono, 2010). By means of critically looking at the issue of tourism and politics, it can be seen that the political economy and sustainable tourism are two interlinked components within the nature and scope of tourism development (Mkono, 2010; Mosadale, 2012; Nunkoo & Smith, 2013, 2017).
Economic factors
Bivolaru et al. (2012) and Gossling (2017) express a belief that a great disadvantage of developing countries lies in them having to manage their destinations advantageously, so as to gain or exploit the competitive edge available. What usually occurs, however, is that people tend to rely on clichés or stereotypes when decoding the economic environment (Kim &
Fesenmair, 2017; Yuksel, 2009). Holden (2016) argues that various issues need to be considered when analysing the economic environment of a tourism destination. Such an environment, amongst many other factors, includes: the exports output; the balance of payments; the current account deficit; the foreign direct investment; the national income; the investment incentives;
the monetary policy; the current deficit; the foreign debt; and the unemployment levels (Bowen et al., 2016; Gozgor et al., 2017).
Sociocultural and demographic factors
Koutoulas (2004), Byrd (2007), Aguera (2013), and Fagerton (2017), as well as Oian et al.
(2017), argue that the sociocultural and demographic factors are very important when profiling tourism stakeholders, for such factors affect the future of tourism offerings. However, the sociocultural and demographic influences on tourism development are usually overlooked by destinations, especially in the developing communities (Mkono, 2010; Morupisi & Mokgalo, 2017; Mzembi, 2014; Yuksel, 2009). Bivolaru et al. (2012) note that the changing demographic trends tend to have a major effect on the consumption of tourism offerings. Though the demand for certain offerings might decrease (Chigora & Vutete, 2015), the visitors are likely to develop new needs and expectations (Dolnicar & Ring, 2014; Fagerton, 2017), with sociocultural responsibilities changing in response to new developments (Lew, 2017; Wan & Li, 2013).
According to Bivolaru et al. (2012), as well as Oian et al. (2017), the above-mentioned factors pose a serious threat to tourism development, with the stakeholders needing to analyse the sociodemographic factors critically if they need to achieve STD. Such factors as the social integration programmes, the lifestyle changes, the level of education (i.e. the literacy levels), the awareness of citizens and tourists, the culture of democracy, the demographic structure and trends in the population, the age, income and education, the social mobility, and the religious practices of the stakeholders concerned need to be considered by the destinations in terms of the above variable.
Technological factors
Technological progress contributes enormously to the growth of tourism globally (Schegg &
Stangl, 2017). Ranging from such technological enhancements as jet aircraft, through commercial air transport (UNWTO & ETC, 2011) to the development of electronic technology facilitating direct search and booking (Gossling, 2017), the power of technology on the boosting of tourism performance cannot be overestimated. Koo, Tussyadiah and Hunter (2017) argue that technology-led tourism destination has had such benefits as the transformation and additional competitiveness of cities, cultures and economies. Chigora and Vutete (2015) advance the notion that the implications for all destinations are that, unless they fully embrace electronic technology in all aspects of tourism planning, delivery and marketing, they will continue to be less competitive than they might otherwise be.
In the above-mentioned case, Bivolaru et al. (2012), as well as Li, Hu, Huang and Duan (2017), concur that, when planning for STD, tourism stakeholders at a destination are encouraged to consider the following technological factors: the technological investment policies of government; new patents; the support of research and development activities; the adaptation to new technologies; and the assessment of the rate of change in terms of technology.
Globalisation
Globalisation has resulted in the placing of an increased amount of power in the hands of a small number of global travel and tourism networks (Salifou & Ul Haq, 2017). Boluk et al.
(2017) express a belief in the growing power of international economic and market forces, and in the consequent decline of the ability of individual destinations to control their economies.
According to Bivolaru et al. (2012), such is the extent of the influence of globalisation, with national boundaries losing their relative importance in terms of everyday economic activities (Brahmasrene & Lee, 2013). The concept of international competition has become increasingly important, because the significance and value of goods and services produced outside national political geographies has increased (Salifou & Ul Haq, 2017). In such a case, the destinations concerned are advised to develop their tourism offerings so that they can become globally competitive and attract more tourists than before (Brahmasrene & Lee, 2013).
Apart from the external variables, the STD can be influenced by other variables that can change, or be changed, through the direct action of stakeholders (Stasiak, 2013). The following section discusses the internal variables that can be controlled within the tourism development of a destination.